Always-on-DRM - why buy games with it?
- Thread starter EtherealBeaver
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Not really. GW1 was not an "MMO Proper". It had a group cap of...god...I want to say 8 people...any of which could get subbed out for bots, and the only time you were around a "massive" amount of players was in non-combat hubs like towns. It bore a much stronger resemblance to, say, Diablo II than something like Everquest or WoW. It was something of a genre tweener.Vegosiux said:
Not adequately it hasn't. The argument of "We the anti-DRM crowd get to tell you what games to buy or not to buy, and if you don't listen to us we have free reign to assassinate your character" is supported only by speculation. You are speculating about a grim future in which we get DRMed to death. This speculation can charitably be described as a slippery slope, and uncharitably be described as paranoia.Vegosiux said:
You cannot establish that A will necessarily follow B...that the purchasing of games featuring online DRM will automatically lead to its proliferation and the erosion of consumer rights. You can't. It's a future scenario, and it hasn't happened yet. There isn't even good anecdotal precedent to establish it, just the odd case here and there of an MMO shutting down or EA being dillweeds again. We heard this same Strang und Durm about the end of all things back when Steam was new (and believe me, new Steam was every bit as annoying as UPlay or Battle.net could ever hope to be) and that has turned out to be fairly tolerable. Yet we still have to sit around listening to talking heads bloviate about the imminent death of the hobby and boiling frogs and whispering the "First they came" poem in a stirring display of an utter lack of perspective.
I'll say again. You can make your own decisions about what to buy and what not to buy, for your own reasons. And those reasons are wholly your own. I don't ask you to make decisions in your life based on my values, and you would not appreciate it if I did. Your concerns about a hypothetical future scenario do not entitle you to run other people's lives, and they do not give you free reign to engage in cheery libel on an internet forum.
There are words to describe people so married to their cause or belief that they feel it is their privilege to attack anyone who does not share it. Rather than get to a point where we're chucking THOSE words around, why don't we all calm the fuck down and mind our business when it comes to who buys what?
I absolutely agree. Sure it would be nice if we all decided never to buy always on DRM, but that's never going to happen. Enough people will never boycott it all at once, and one or even one thousand people won't make a difference to a multi-million pound/dollar corporation, so there really is no point.Neonsilver said:
So the "online" component was DRM, or was it not DRM? Please, no "It could be seen as" or "From a certain point of view". A simple yes or no will do.BloatedGuppy said:
Have you ever seen me talking on behalf of "We, the anti-DRM crowd"? Actually, have you ever seen me use the "I get to tell you what to buy or not to buy, etc, etc, etc"?
Hmmm. I recall what I said closer to "If you don't slap (metaphorically) people for doing A, chances are they will try to keep doing A, and that they're going to try and do A on a larger scale."
Mhm, and you'll be kind enough to point out where I've tried to run other people's lives? Direct citations only, please, your personal interpretation of an ambiguous situation won't count, because after all, I am a better judge of what I was doing and thinking than you are, so my word on it naturally carries more weight than yours.
By insinuating that I might be one of these people (because, why else would you bring it up?) you've already taken it to the point where THOSE words could start flying. So I will tell you what I told Draech. If you wish to insult me, drop the pretense and insult me directly. If you do npt wish to insult me, do not even insinuate.
Okay I haven't told him that second part, but it goes for him too.
Define DRM. Whether an online component represents nothing but obtrusive DRM or a value add lies entirely in the eye of the beholder. Some people will tell you they are excited about, say, SimCity's multi-city system, whereas others will tell you it's a thin veil of game play masking a sinister DRM plot.Vegosiux said:
So, was Guild Wars "always online" requirement a form of DRM? In exactly the same way Diablo 3 and SimCity's "always online" requirements were, yes.
That is a slippery slope. Remember when I said "it's a slippery slope"? You don't need to repeat the slippery slope. We've already established what's going on there. That slope is not getting any less slippery, so let's just put it to one side for now. We can both see the slope. We've both acknowledged the slope. Look, there it is! We can be done with it now. There's nothing more than can be added, really.Vegosiux said:
I had a longer response to all this written out, but it was getting pretty fucking snarky, so I'm going to dial it way back because in all honesty you are correct. You are relatively moderate on this issue, and I've gotten to the point where my annoyance level has me throwing wild punches. We're WAY down the highway of opinion polarization on this topic, now. A year ago I was faintly anti-always online DRM despite being always online, because it seemed like a pretty transparent shady tactic. Now, after a year of enduring a nigh bottomless parade of insults and demands, I'm half tempted to write letters begging for always online DRM in everything just to piss people off. The ridiculously inflammatory rhetoric, the non-stop name calling, the extraordinary self-aggrandizement...it's gotten me to the point where I'm almost liking always online DRM for the stupid reason that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.Vegosiux said:
Is this another game completely built around multiplayer with gigantic area's with a map that keeps expanding (some actually fitting in 200 people to fight a big boss) and lots of skills and quests for team work? Otherwise it's going to fall flat just like your other argument since the game didn't started off small and just suddenly become a series that wanted to be multiplayer. Even when playing an MMO I get my fair share of lag and hiccups that kick me out, and my connection couldn't be any better.Draech said:
Coming from someone who supports dictators that keep making things less convenient and couldn't give a damn what the opposition thinks.Draech said:
Your purchasing decisions do oppress freedoms! You decided to support this crap with your wallet along with many others and that's what makes the publishers or whoever fbelieve they can get away with it. 2 + 2 = 4.
I'm glad this bothers you cause you obviously can't get over it.
Yes because no else lives in reality, the reality where people make sacrifices so they can improve the future. And we know you don't give damn what other people care about, that's why you're always defending yourself and the businesses at every turn.Draech said:
I can't take you seriously at all. You once told Dexter to look at EA with out looking at them as a villian, well maybe you should try and understand why people are so against this DRM. Instead of always biting back, consider why people are so pissed off about it instead telling us "because it won't effect your game in any meaningful way". The whole fucking point is it can, and for many people it will. Most (possibly all) people who decide not to support this are considering others, who make a stand against being forced to follow more rules, because they want whats best for every one. And for some fucked up reason you feel it's necessary to spit on us at every chance you get.
I'm not sure you know but most people can not express their feelings properly, so the aggresion is always going to be around. You on the other hand keep saying you don't care (even though I don't believe it), and there is a lot of words that describe that attitude. I wouldn't normally bother talking to you, but this isn't just for you.
From what I've been able to make out, there is(correct me if I'm wrong) only one game that currently uses always on DRM. There are a few that may have tried it or a few that use regular DRM, but regular DRM, while annoying, isn't extremely detrimental, especially if used properly. So we currently have one game which this discussion can revolve around, and yet there are so many that just want to demonize those that really just don't care. And even then, that one game has some legitemate reasons for it. There is always a risk to buying things, and that is because nothing can last forever. And in the end, if a game does go down that was run on servers, it's easy to pirate and so many people(if it was good) would even run a private server solely for the reason to play it. Look at Phantasy Star Online. If it's about the fact that not everyone has internet, then the people who don't have it won't buy it, and that will affect sales, thus making the company realize the mistake. If it's about the fact that it will go down in 10 years, I already addressed that. If you're using the slippery slope arguments, don't try. Come up with another argument and I'll listen to the argument. No promises about buying it, but I'll listen to those, but I will not listen to a slippery slope one, as they rely too much on the idea of "if." I don't care about "if," I only care about hearing about the "will."
I need to thank you for this post. I lost my temper so I didn't post back, and it's nice to see someone say what I was thinking with a level head.Nazulu said:
I'm not going to look for a complete list, but you certainly are wrong. Sorry. Just off the top of my head, every Ubisoft game since Assassin's Creed 2 has had the online DRM. Blizzard joined in with Starcraft 2, but they did offer some offline options. Before all that, EA was going down an awful slope that I started boycotting them. They added limited installs to games like Mass Effect and Spore, and now they are doing always online too. It would be unfair of me to not mention that some of the games had some of their restrictions relaxed, but I can't be bothered to keep up on all of them. I just know it took me about 9 months to uninstall Mass Effect because I didn't want to lose the installation, and there was no revoke tool that I could use.klaynexas3 said:
I'm saying always on DRM, and in this current day. The Assassin's Creed new games and StarCraft 2 require that online activation, but past that you can play offline, and while I can't be absolutely certain, I feel like Mass Effect is the same, but again I could be wrong. I wouldn't know with Spore. Diablo 3 I can only somewhat understand with the auction house.Signa said:
I have nothing wrong with standing up for what you believe in, and some games *cough*new Simcity*cough* really have no reason to be always online, but what I am getting tired of is the idea that others are terrible people for buying these games. They obviously find enough redeeming values in it to continue playing, and some actually do weigh out everything, including the risk of losing the game for good, and they still think the content is worth all that hassle.
I am also tired of "AAA" game companies being related to as dictators and such, as though they have total control over gaming. There is the indie game market, which can sometimes have games a thousand times greater than any AAA game. The big "AAA" companies don't control the gaming industry as much as people tend to think, so just because the bigger names might start using always on DRM, doesn't mean the death of gaming. And in the end, the one thing which pisses me off most, is that so many people forget that games are not just a product. They are an art form. Anyone can make a game if they try, so if you or anyone else want to see the next great game, casting your votes with your wallet is not the only way to make it happen. It can do something, don't get me wrong, but it's not the only thing you can do.
I can't say that I view all DRM as a bad thing, the only one that I find to be crap is always on in a single player game. Anyone can do a one time activation; even if they don't have internet at home, there is always somewhere else you can go to do the activation, such as a library. The always on, however, does cut off anyone without internet from playing. If we see internet as a service becoming free like it was mentioned in an article here a few days(maybe weeks, I have little perception of time), then it will become a bit more grey(though only a little), but until then, there is little to no reason for it.
Let me make this clear. It's less of a sin when the series started off on this note than just suddenly changing to online only. I never bought Guild Wars for many reasons, but the game does change in area's and how it brings people together.Draech said:
That's really bad argument you have there. It has nothing to do with my choice in buying it or not, it's about how DRM keeps getting thrown into new games. It's about trying to make it available to every one with out having to be treated like the problem. Believe or not, there are a lot of people that don't like being treated like the problem, and I'm sure the people who can not play this game would love to give you a hug. Just like you, every one wants to be able to play all the games, and is it too much to ask with out fuss?Draech said:
I get the feeling you've somehow convinced yourself that DRM issues doesn't matter when comparing to other problems. Why do you have to compare? Should we just ignore every thing you're OK with just because you only care about other problems? You don't think it gets worse? Well it seems they might have a similar DRM on the next Xbox, hopefully not. Oh it can get worse, it's a fair prediction to make.
You don't give any one any reason to give a damn what you think. You keep saying you don't care, you don't care, you don't care, you don't care, you don't care, you don't care, you don't care, you don't care, you don't care, you don't care, you don't care, you don't care, you don't care, that's your whole fucking argument along with some poor comparisons. We know you don't bloody care, but if you think you can get away with saying that your purchase doesn't have an effect then you're full of it. Oh and you will care when some thing happens to your internet or they decide to take it a step further.
And here again you're missing the point. You like to twist every thing and make assumptions as well. Once again, you give me no reason to respect you.Draech said:
Want to explain how I'm self entitled? Oh, you were using that as an insult because I've some how offended you. This is just more spitting and it means fuck all coming from you.
So you don't have to repeat your boring arguments let me make this clear. I never said what you have to like or don't have to like. However, you are voting with your wallet, and I am as well. Therefore there is a confliction, so repeating the same shit about how you buy what you like doesn't mean a fucking thing to me. You don't like that I don't agree your purchase is good, GOOD!!! That's the whole fucking point! I don't care what you call it but it's no going away because you wish it would. You voted for it, therefore your helping it, therefore your part of it. Nothing is going to change that until you decide not purchase, is that clear? You must feel some thing since you can't just let this go
So you can either repeat yourself and insult me some more, or you could ignore it, or you can think about it. Either way you are officially part of it and we will still disagree with your purchase.
That is a horrible argument unless you think its okay that clothes fall apart a week after purchase. You can expect organic things to decay, not mechanical things. And if the mechanical thing breaks, you can expect that it will be fixable, either by yourself or in a workshop. You cant do that with always-on-drmAntiChri5 said:
But by that argumentation, you are effectively moving consumer care and planning from being the responsibility of the company to being the responsibility of the consumer itself. Basic commercialism tells us that if companies can make more money doing something, they will and if they realise that they can give even less care about the consumers than they already do "because they will try and fix it themselves" then what incitament would they have to have enough servers or customer support at all? Is this not just inviting the companies to remove even more of the support than they alredy did?PH3NOmenon said:
If they arent going to support a game they sell why sell it at all then? It would be like selling an old car without the motor and refusing to answer questions about the motor because "its old".Woodsey said:
A game which doesnt function is a product which doesnt function. The company selling the product should never have a kill switch for a product because its the consumers right to decide when they are done with said product just like it is the consumers responsibility to take care of their own product if they want it to continue being in a functional state.
If the company stopped selling Deus Ex 2 then I can accept that they wont offer support for new sales of the game. The fact that they are still selling it however makes it my right to expect the game to actually work and if it doesnt, help to make it work.
Remember the good old days, where a company would more than likely be prepared to do something like release one last patch removing the always on DRM when they chose to discontinue their support?
Also there's the whole subjective value issue. People can feel the price they paid for owning the game for a few years, given suitable play time, is worthwhile to them.
Trying to paint it as black and white 'You're the consumer so thats that' misses that you're the consumer and you make purchases based on your situation at time. And this medium is not something people view as a long term investment, and as such isnt given that consideration. Sure when you buy a house or a car, you consider the lifetime of the product, but when you buy a videogame you look at it as a short term satisfaction, and then in your later years if you find you still have it, you are pleasantly surprised. Hell even DRM aside, the tech rush and 'next best thing' craze often means older products get disregarded anyway.
Also there's the whole subjective value issue. People can feel the price they paid for owning the game for a few years, given suitable play time, is worthwhile to them.
Trying to paint it as black and white 'You're the consumer so thats that' misses that you're the consumer and you make purchases based on your situation at time. And this medium is not something people view as a long term investment, and as such isnt given that consideration. Sure when you buy a house or a car, you consider the lifetime of the product, but when you buy a videogame you look at it as a short term satisfaction, and then in your later years if you find you still have it, you are pleasantly surprised. Hell even DRM aside, the tech rush and 'next best thing' craze often means older products get disregarded anyway.
And what I'm making clear is changing a series all of sudden to multiplayer is still bullshit, and just because other games have gotten away with it, doesn't mean it's suddenly OK.Draech said:
Oh look, you're reapeating yourself. I never would have predicted that.Draech said:
It seems I can't make it clear to you that it doesn't matter how many times "it works for me" or how the weak comparisons doesn't mean shit. We still don't agree with your purchase and we believe you are helping the problem we're against, you are voting with your wallet remember. And incase you don't understand why we do it, it's because we believe the DRM is unfair no matter how many times you call us entitled or some other bullshit defence.
If you were a vegetarian arguing how I'm a drug addict for eating meat and you actually had a strong point, then I would think about it. I would stop eating meat if it helped saved a species or something. Just like we are against games having DRM so no one has to put up with it.
*sigh* You repeated that same thing here too. I can't believe what I'm reading.Draech said:
I don't buy games when they have DRM because I don't want DRM. I have the right to do that don't I? Or it doesn't matter what I believe because no matter what, if I'm against DRM then I'm entitled? I don't think you even read what you write.
So you feel offended that we don't like your purchasing decision and that you're apart of it. Get over it like you say. I really thought I made it clear, I can't believe I have to repeat myself. YOU ARE VOTING WITH YOUR WALLET WHETHER YOU THINK SO OR NOT! You can call it righteous crusade or use insults or what ever but it doesn't mean shit because you support it and we're against it.
I'm amazed you even sent me this. It seems you can't fathom why you're helping DRM. I didn't even say any thing as dramatic as the 'downfall of gaming'. I reckon you think about your next purchase before supporting DRM, or should just leave if you can't handle the thought that someone is against your train of thought.
You make it seem like that doesn't happen for cars. There's still people buying cars that are essentially unfixable if and when they break. If people know about it up front, then there really isn't an issue. It only becomes a problem when it's hushed up.EtherealBeaver said:
Myeah, I think I see the issue here. In my opinion, the consumer is responsible for making informed purchases. The whole notion that they shouldn't be leads to those silly warnings on products: "Do not insert into eyes." on a pair of scissors or the like.EtherealBeaver said:
Any game with always on drm has a big sticker on it proclaiming it as such. I am well aware of the risks involved and I am comfortable with them (from large companies, at least). I know the car, if and when it breaks down, might not be repairable. I know that at certain times, the dealership may decide I can't drive the car right now. I know that the dealership will know at all times where the car is. Hell, I might even be forbidden from reselling the car. I know all of that. And I still decide to purchase the car, because in my life my car isn't that important to me and I deem the expense to be reasonable for what I get in return for it.
I respect anyone for not buying always-on-drm games. Vote with your dollar. I will vote with mine.
Do I like always on drm? Not really, no. (I enjoy steam's convenience though.) I just don't dislike it enough to actually alter my purchasing behaviour. Not yet, anyway.
These publishers only speak one language: Money.
If you buy a game with always-online DRM, you are telling them that you are ok with that. If SimCity doesn't sell well, EA will notice. If it does sell well, however, what they won't notice are the complaints and discussions on the internet. Ok, they might notice that, but why would they care? They'll already have our money.
The problem is that they can push this form of DRM with big names like Diablo 3, SimCity and other AAA titles. We waited over 10 years for an overhyped Diablo 3, we don't care about anything anymore. Just wanna play the game. OMFG D3 is here! Must buy limited 100$ pre-order edition with extra shit I don't need! Because it's fucking Diablo! Blizzard! Well, it's not Blizzard anymore. It's Activision. Then the game turns out to be buggy, unfinished and we can't even play the singleplayer mode as a pre-order customer, because their servers can't handle the traffic. But we take it anyway, despite there being Torchlight 2 which is basically a consumer-friendlier version of Diablo 3 for 20$. That's how they fool us.
I'm not aware of any alternative for SimCity. That game looks pretty amazing, imho. But I won't buy it. I can't buy it, because I'm not ok with their DRM and business practices.
And if there is no other similar game avaible, tough. I'm not that desperate.
If you buy a game with always-online DRM, you are telling them that you are ok with that. If SimCity doesn't sell well, EA will notice. If it does sell well, however, what they won't notice are the complaints and discussions on the internet. Ok, they might notice that, but why would they care? They'll already have our money.
The problem is that they can push this form of DRM with big names like Diablo 3, SimCity and other AAA titles. We waited over 10 years for an overhyped Diablo 3, we don't care about anything anymore. Just wanna play the game. OMFG D3 is here! Must buy limited 100$ pre-order edition with extra shit I don't need! Because it's fucking Diablo! Blizzard! Well, it's not Blizzard anymore. It's Activision. Then the game turns out to be buggy, unfinished and we can't even play the singleplayer mode as a pre-order customer, because their servers can't handle the traffic. But we take it anyway, despite there being Torchlight 2 which is basically a consumer-friendlier version of Diablo 3 for 20$. That's how they fool us.
I'm not aware of any alternative for SimCity. That game looks pretty amazing, imho. But I won't buy it. I can't buy it, because I'm not ok with their DRM and business practices.
And if there is no other similar game avaible, tough. I'm not that desperate.
A couple of questions for these always-on DRM apologists. Are you OK with not being able to play the game that you bought with your hard earned money when you want if your connection is down or when the servers are down? Are you honestly OK having to depend on others to tell you when you can use what you payed for? And do you honestly think it's not a consumer rights issue? You see, that is an excellent example of corporate brainwashing. Congratulations. That kind of mindset is exactly what's wrong with this world. You deserve no respect.
I also noticed something. These always-on apologists are often the same people who believe what the companies told them about paying for a license instead of an actual product. So they're OK with being told that they don't own what they bought. They're OK with paying for nothing. And they are also often the ones who don't realize that EULA is not a legally binding document, and also it's filled with anti-consumer clauses that are illegal in most European countries. Pathetic.
The companies aren't the biggest problem here. It's the people who fall for these anti-consumerism money making schemes over and over again for decades now.
I just can't understand how someone can defend a system that is rigged directly against them. How hard is it for you to understand that these companies aren't using always-on DRM because they want to help the customers. They want to help themselves. And whenever a company wants to help itself you can bet your ass it means that you're going to suffer for it somehow.
I also noticed something. These always-on apologists are often the same people who believe what the companies told them about paying for a license instead of an actual product. So they're OK with being told that they don't own what they bought. They're OK with paying for nothing. And they are also often the ones who don't realize that EULA is not a legally binding document, and also it's filled with anti-consumer clauses that are illegal in most European countries. Pathetic.
The companies aren't the biggest problem here. It's the people who fall for these anti-consumerism money making schemes over and over again for decades now.
I just can't understand how someone can defend a system that is rigged directly against them. How hard is it for you to understand that these companies aren't using always-on DRM because they want to help the customers. They want to help themselves. And whenever a company wants to help itself you can bet your ass it means that you're going to suffer for it somehow.